Assignment task: Canadian Business Law
We are splitting negligence from the rest of the torts content as negligence is a very important area of law and quite dense.
1. Explain in one sentence what a tort is. Provide an example of an intentional tort.
See page 64.
2. You are the owner of a plumbing business with three employees. One of your employees is on his way to a job site using a company vehicle. While he is on the road, he changes lanes without shoulder checking, causing his vehicle to swipe another off the road. The victim is unharmed but her vehicle is totaled. Are you, as the business owner, liable for the accident that your employee caused? If yes, do you have any recourse later against your employee?
See pages 65-66 of the textbook and this video.
3. There is something in the law called a "non-feasance," which means a failure to act. Let's say you are a very good swimmer, and you are on vacation in Ontario. You have a chance encounter on someone drowning in a lake. You are clearly capable of saving the person with little difficulty, but you choose not to help and the person dies. You cannot be found liable, criminally or civilly, for refusing to help the person.
Explain why you think the law would take the stance that you are not obligated to help the drowning person.
NOTE: There are no textbook materials on this matter. I am not assessing you on a "correct answer." Rather, I am assessing you on your ability to articulate logical reasoning.
4. You decide to maintain a lion sanctuary in your backyard in northwestern BC. You install and properly maintain a state-of-the-art security system to prevent an escape by your lions. An amazing weather event occurs, causing a tornado to hit northwest BC. In the carnage, one of your lions escapes and causes damage to surrounding properties.
Do you think you will be liable for the tort of nuisance? Explain.
See pages 88-89 of the textbook
5. People are expected to act as a "reasonable person" would. This is known as an "objective test," which is contrasted against a "subjective test." See the video on the reasonable person test for explanation of these concepts.
Luke decides to disconnect from society. He goes out in the wilderness for two months without telling anyone. While Luke is away, BC Hydro (the electric utility company in BC) sends a letter to Luke saying his bill is overdue and he must pay soon or get his electricity disconnected. When Luke returns home, he finds his electricity disconnected. He later goes to Small Claims Court over the re-connection fee and says that he should not have to pay the fee because he was not aware of the original warning letter BC Hydro sent.
Explain what the outcome of the case would be if the court followed an a) subjective test and b) a reasonable person test. Which one of these results do you think is the correct legal outcome and why?